‘Right Wing News’ Withdraws McCain Support

Mmmfph.

I was afraid of this, though I must say it came sooner than I figured it.

I’ve never been a fan of John McCain. Not only is he not a conservative, he may have done more damage to the conservative movement than any other Republican over the last few years. Look back at the Gang-of-14, global warming, McCain-Feingold, coddling terrorists at Gitmo, illegal immigration — on and on and on, and you’ll remember John McCain working feverishly with liberals to defeat conservatives.

That’s the opening of a post that’ll have the whole ‘sphere talking, very shortly.  It’s posted by John Hawkins, over at Right Wing News, entitled “Why I Will No Longer Support John McCain For President”

What pushed John over the edge?

McCain’s on- again off- again support for Amnesty, which is otherwise somewhat laughingly called “comprehensive immigration reform”

Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He’s a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his “Read my lips, no new taxes pledge,” except that Bush’s father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.

Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it.

I’m not quite sure I’m ready to go this far, (yet) though I can certainly see John’s point, In fairness to John, I must say that in a lot of ways I’m where John is.  David and I have made no secret about our problems with McCain, and the immigration business has been just one of the many points we’ve discussed, and frankly been dismissive over as regards McCain.

And so, we find ourselves in this mess. Wouldn’t it have been far better to nominate a real conservative instead of McCain? (Sigh)

OK, I know… In fairness, it should be said that much of his victory in the primaries was Democrats crossing party lines in their own version of Operation Chaos. I frankly wonder if we won’t see attempts by the Democrats to close primaries, as a result of their own problems this cycle, and so I wonder if that will be a problem in 2012.

And let me be clear, here. I don’t give a damn about the ‘honor’ of the Republicans, in light of the larger questions facing us. Frankly, I find such a term attached to any pol of either party to be offensive, anyway. What I am most concerned about is this country’s future. Specifically, the question: “Will it actually HAVE one following the next presidency?”  No argument that Obama in the White House, spells destruction. There’s no question in my mind on that score. The question still outstanding is, is McCain any better? Given this Amnesty bit, and some other indications we’ve discussed here recently, I’d be hard pressed to make the choice.

So, we’re still facing the next four years, and I’m still facing a choice, as are we all.  We find ourselves faced with a choice of McCain, or the man who actually performed the monumental task of making Hillary Clinton seem like a sane choice… Obama. (Edit: That’s something even Mark Penn couldn’t do!) It’s a demonstration of how bad McCain is, in our assessment, that the choice is still listed as ‘day to day’.

As such, I’m equally hard pressed to complain about Hawkins and his choice.

There’s a message being sent here. Clearly the message is, McCain will not get to the White House on his current path.

Your move, Mr. McCain.

(Edit Bit, editing error in headline)

Others:

Outside The Beltway, Sister Toldjah, Hot Air, The Strata-Sphere, Riehl World View,  Jules Crittenden,  The Politico, QandO, Stop The ACLU, Macsmind, American Spectator, The Jawa Report, Michelle Malkin

It is prissy. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are now complaining about the Hillary nutcrackers sold at every airport shop. Boo hoo. If Golda Meir, a woman of not only proclaimed but actual toughness, heard about Golda nutcrackers, she would have bought them by the case and given them away as party favors.

Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, explains the difference between Mrs. Clinton and a real leader.

Single issue Ramble tonight. I want to speak briefly about Memorial day which comes up this weekend.

It’s always been a special day for me, because honoring our vets has always held special meaning for me; it’s a lesson my parents instilled very well, indeed. It was brought home to me, as I was recently looking at pictures from a trip we made through the Gettysburg PA area some years ago.

It’s a particularly meaningful thing, when you’re standing on that field…. Something that goes well beyond the cold facts and figures about who died from what company, how old they were, or even where they were from. It’s more a feeling you get…. You can sense it… not unlike being at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, or visiting Arlington National Cemetery. I’m told Omaha Beach, and Pearl Harbor and many other sites are the same way. I’ve been at the funerals of firemen and policemen who died in their line of duty, and that was also remarkably similar.

In each case, we’re dealing with places and concepts of death. But death alone doesn’t do it; doesn’t create that solemn atmosphere that is so unique to the above places. After all; there are lots of mass casualty accidents have happened over the centuries and their sites are well marked, and revered, or at least held apart, and yet, their impact doesn’t approach that of an Iwo Jima or a Pearl.

Even under the shelter of the relative safety of the time that has passed since the events, as you stand in each place, you can still feel it; Lives were lost there that were willingly (And in the case of the civilian deaths at the towers, unwillingly) sacrificed toward a higher ideal.

Our feelings and conclusions can be far different from what those lost experienced. Yet, their lives and their sacrifices still count for something. And the thing is, it doesn’t take much for us to out ourselves in their mindset.

Think of it this way; Every single man who died at Gettysburg, at Normandy, at Pearl and all the rest, has meaning for us because each of them, had their own lives, just as we have our own lives.

These people loved, they laughed, they cried. They had a favorite food, a favorite color, a particular bit of music, or of poetry stirred their souls, like none other, just like we, ourselves. Every bit as much as you and I love our lives, they loved theirs. Their lives were as precious to them, as yours is to you. Their loss was as keenly felt by their loved ones as yours would yours. And yet, they gave their lives up, for something bigger.

I have a neighbor, whose father just recently needed a liver transplant. This neighbor willingly gave up part of his liver to be transplanted into his father. A noble action, certainly, commendable, and impressive. But with all respect to my neighbor, the choice to do that is comparatively easy to make. He knows and loves his father, and the sacrifice is fairly light by comparison.

How much more noble is a sacrifice of one’s life for people that one will never meet? Well, the people we honor today, those in uniform particularly, but some who were not, gave of themselves for the benefit of people they would never know…. you and I, and countless others from many nations. If not for their sacrifices, you’d not be reading this BIT, because I’d not have written it…. we’d be living in a very different world, possibly, one not nearly as good to us as it has been.

Look upon those actions, those sacrifices, and know what you’re seeing is strength, courage, and nobility in measures that should not… can not, be ignored. It must be honored by us all; it was made, after all for our benefit.

Think about that as we deal with the solemn proceedings for their day.

I’ve been saying this oil bubble we’re in is about to burst. I said just this morning:

Did you notice the prediction for $12/gallon gas? That’s usually the first sign of a bubble bursting. Just file it away for now.

Apparently, you’re not going to have to file it for long, now. The Telegraph:

The perfect storm that has swept oil prices to $132 a barrel may subside over the coming months as rising crude supply from unexpected corners of the world finally comes on stream, just as the global economic downturn begins to bite.

The forces behind the meteoric price rise this spring are slowly receding.

The article goes in in some by market and by source detail, on what’s happening. Suffice it to say that all is proceeding as I have been saying it would for the last two months, now.

Yesterday, Bit wrote:

[Mike] Goldfarb can be quite acerbic when he wants to be, can’t he?

You think?

History for Dummies (and Presidential Candidates!)

Education courtesy of a history teacher, Betsy Newmark, Betsy’s Page:

Obama has been citing Kennedy’s meeting with Khrushchev as an argument why he believes that his proposal to meet without preconditions, but with preparation, with the leaders of Iran is the right policy. Yes, Kennedy did meet with Khrushchev, but not quite as Obama described it. Obama seemed to be placing the meeting of the two leaders during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

When Kennedy met with Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war.”

The Cuban Missile Crisis took place in October of 1962. The two leaders did not meet during that crisis. But they had met over a year earlier, in the Spring of Kennedy’s first year in office in June, 1961 in Vienna. And the results were not pretty as Nathan Thrall and Jesse James Wilkins write today in the The New York Times.

At the rate BO is going he going to be lauding the Gipper’s Iran-Contra negotiations.

?

Got lots of mail last night on my “How to raise fuel prices” post of yesterday. Actually, that’s why my posting was a little lighter than usual, this morning… I was pouring over the mail. Some of it was pointing me to Bruce’s post of yesterday, about that congressional show hearing… particularly this part, which Bruce quotes:

“If the nation set a goal of increasing domestic production by 2 (million) to 3 million barrels a day by opening up new sources of exploration and production, we could demonstrate to the world that we are in control of our own destiny,” Shell Oil Co. President John Hofmeister told a Senate panel today.

Granting greater access, Hofmeister argued, coupled with Congress’ previous actions to increase use of renewable fuels and to raise fuel mileage requirements, could help avoid awkward scenarios in which U.S. leaders ask producing nations to produce more and get “an unresponsive reply.”

Many of the notes I got this monring express some satisfaction that Congress got told in those two paras what I said back on the 18th of this month:

So why are we insisting on playing the victim, here, of everyone who has the courage and foresight to drill for oil? Why are we so opposed to making use on the world stage, of the energy we have as a controlling factor for all this gamesmanship by OPEC? I hasten to point out that our immediate price problems would ease long before such domestic sources came online. All that needs doing is to show the world we’re not playing the victim, anymore. How to do that?

Drill, refine, repeat.

It’s that simple.

Oh… there is the added dimension of telling the enviro-whack jobs to sit down and shut up. But, stop at any gas station, and tell the people paying twice what they should for fuel, that they’re saving the Snail Darter. After you remove the gasoline hose from your mouth, (and barf up a few gallons of the stuff they’ve poured into you) and get several attackers off of you, you’ll begin to understand that there is a groundswell of anger against the left and the enviro-whackjobs on these issues. The only out here is increasing supply.. and making a commitment to keep domestic oil supplies flowing. We do have the power to do this. Such an increase doesn’t need to supply all our needs, but needs to be enough to change the rules of the game OPEC is playing… because what affects OPEC will also change the rules of the speculation game that’s now going on, and keeping our prices high. The person, the party which makes that commitment, that does all that will be unbeatable come November. (Hint: The Democrats haven’t done this, nor are they likely to)

If the feedback I got on all this is of any inditcation, we are shortly going to be coming to a point where the American people are going to figure out how the government has been screwing them over on all this. The energy probelms we face right now are not with the oil companies, but with the nitwits who were sitting in judgement  of them yesterday.  Woe to the Democrats when the American people begin to figure this stuff out. The party, the individual who figures all this out and starts harping on getting government out of the way of energy, and doesn’t have a record of being part of the problem,  will be unstopable in the next election.

And by the way, a little side note, here… Did you notice the prediction for $12/gallon gas? That’s usually the first sign of a bubble bursting. Just file it away for now.

So, John McCain took some time the other day to speak out for lower taxes, and free marketplace?

How much of this gets negotiated away, as he tried to get something through the Democrat Congress, I wonder?

• As predicted, Clinton in Kentucky, Obama in Oregon. The Depth of Clinton’s Kentucky win is striking , though. I’ll have to check, but I don’t know as there has ever been a Democrat who has won the White House who ever lost as many states by so wide a margin, as Obama and Clinton both have. Can’t say much for their being elected.
• Anyone having any doubts about my assessment of Chuck Hagel should doubt no more.
• A tragic situation, certainly. But worth this response? No. Government shouldn’t have been involved here. This is government leaping into a situation so as to ‘do something’ at a level where unintended consequences ensue.
• Same here.
• Billy, I have to tell you. Your answers here and your cries here would seem to be an answer for why this was such a disconnect for you. The title, perhaps, was hard to deal with? Just a thought.
• We’ve Located Glenn Greenwald.
• Kaus thinks the electoral math doesn’t look good for Obama. Thats mildly interesting, but between the RINO that McCain’s turned into and the projections for a large Dem majority in the house and 7 or 8 in the Senate, I fail to see how there’s much of a difference.
• Joyner is asking about the whole issue of rebrandng the GOP.  The Farm bill they helped to push through rebranded them, far as I can see. They’re now called “Democrat Lite”. They did nothing to the end of helping Republicans… REAL Republicans, into power. When Republicans will vote OPM away like Democrats, what’s the point of having two parties?
• Kennedy went home?  Yeah, not a shock, I think. It most certainly doesn’t bode well for him, but I’m not surprised.
• Wegmans, the more or less local food chain, has suddenly gotten better with their doughnuts.  We’ll ahve to buy a box, David and I, and battle it out.

Allison Benedikt, Village Voice, “My Lady Parts Do Not Ache for Hillary Clinton:”

My lady parts do not ache for Hillary Clinton.

As The First Viable Female Contender’s bid for the Democratic nomination sputters to its inevitable end, everyone and their mother/sister/daughter has something to say about the poisonous misogyny that’s apparently to blame.

Sorry Allison.   A female may have women parts, or girl parts.   However a lady has no divisable parts.   A lady is all lady.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin.  

?

From Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1bitch
Pronunciation: \?bich\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English bicche, from Old English bicce
Date: before 12th century
2b: a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman -sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse

Jessica, Feministing, has her knickers in twist over the following video(Language):

 [wp_youtube]XEl4KMNUjI4[/wp_youtube]

So what’s the bitch?   The term bitch is an old and well defined.  Some people do in fact fit the definition, as does Mrs. Clinton.   George W. Bush was man eouigh to serve despite being endlessly called a chimp and being compared to Hitler.  George was man enough to take the heat of the arena.  Is Mrs. Clinton capable of doing the same?  No way.

It it not like Mrs. Clinton has delicate ears and is not accustomed to salty language.    It is not like the Clintons have any particular regard for women.

• Create shortages in the oil markets by ensuring domestic oil supplies can never be used. This will force us to get oil from the least stable spots in the world, thus forcing not only higher prices, but forcing us to fund people intent on destroying us.
• Regulate domestic suppliers out of business with NIMBY, and enviro-whackjob policy, and regulations and of course, the great leveler, taxes.
• Make sure that no new refineries are built over a period 30 years, to meet the need.
• Mandate that everyone buys only governmentally mandated formulations of gasoline, thus creating shortages of the ingredients.
• Make sure that each area of the country has it’s own mandated formulation, which will strain the already over-strained existing refining infrastructure, thus raising prices.
• Create even further price increases by ensuring that each area of the country moves to seasonal blends, which will create even more havoc on the refiners, thus raising prices even further.
• Mandate that all these regional blends contain MBTE, which is a creation of one of your biggest contributors. Make sure it’s added in the name of saving the environment. don’t tell anyone how this raises the price of fuel.
• Mandate that all these regional blends do not contain contain MBTE, which is a creation of one of your biggest contributors. Make sure it’s removed in the name of saving the environment, but also, require that the removal of MBTE does not affect tailpipe emissions… regardless of the cost. Don’t tell anyone how this raises the price of fuel.
• When product shortages cause increased prices at the pump, blame the refiners, and increase their taxes as punishment, which can only have the effect of raising pump prices still further.
• When pump prices go up again, raise taxes again, as indicated, even to the point of taxing 60% of their total profits… and nearly 70% of the puump price is the result of taxes and mandated nonsense…. while continuing to blame oil companies for the prices.
• Make lots of noise… most notably from the aforementioned enviro-whackjobs and pols about how we need to get off oil, which has the effect of minimizing investment in new sources of oil, creating even further shortages.

-0-

Note that in each case, the problem is government, which thinks itself at each turn, the solution.

Welcome to the crew from “This Ain’t Hell”

Condescension, with a Georgian drawl, Kyle-Anne Shiver, “Barry honey, can we talk?”

For one thing, you might want to remember that when you’re out on the campaign trail, the professional female reporters are not your little maidservants, nor your girlfriends, not even your adoring groupies.  And they don’t fetch your coffee or even want your autograph.  Calling them, “sweetie,” as you condescendingly brush off their legitimate questions is starting to cause voters concern that you are somewhat uncouth without your programmed teleprompter.

Funny, was just talking aboit Gone with the Wind today.  Kyle-Anne as a modern day Scarlet O’Hara?

?

The so-called newspaper of record, the New York Times, discovers Rusty Shackleford’S great group site, the Jawa Report. Read about Jane has to say about it:

Another article about me but this one is in the New York Times and doesn’t call me a Mason
OMG the Times article is too funny. The fact that there is a Times article is funny enough, but its a killeh because its all true, for example

Hat tip:  see-dubya, Michelle Malkin.

Job well done, and congradulations to all.

?

The Democrats:

• Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
• Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
• Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.
• Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
• Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
• Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
• Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
• Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
• Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
• Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
• Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
• Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
• Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
• Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
• Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
• Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
• Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
• Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
• Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
• Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
• Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
• Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
• Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
• Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
• Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
• Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.

Democrats opposed:

1. The Emancipation Proclamation
2. The 13th Amendment
3. The 14th Amendment
4. The 15th Amendment
5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6. The Civil Rights of 1866
7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
8. The Forced Act of 1871
9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11. The Freeman Bureau
12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14. The United State Civil Rights Commission

Republicans gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
legislation:

1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
2. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
3. The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
4. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
5. Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
6. Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
7. Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
8. Civil Rights Act of 1983
9. Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988

The Republicans:

• Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.
• Republicans founded the HBCU’s (Historical Black College’s and Universities) and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats.
• Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights legislation in Congress.
• Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
• Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
• Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools.
• Republican President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
• Republican and black American, A. Phillip Randolph, organized the 1963 March by Dr. King on Washington.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of the Democrats (153 yes, 91 no), but 80 percent of the Republicans (136 yes, 35 no), voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the Democrats endorsed the bill (46 yes, 21 no), 82 percent of the Republicans voted to enact it (27 yes, 6 no).

Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill.

During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities.

History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.

History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.

After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years, the average African American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that African Americans face today.

As of 2004, the Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans have elected three.

There are several questions that arise from all this. For one thing, why Democrats are still the favored party of Blacks, and why the leftists among us automatically assume that Republicans are racists.

Mike Goldfarb notes the Obamafest in Oregon, where something like 75000 people showed up, reportedly to see Obama himself.

Wrong. Mike Goldfarb:

Hugh points to this report from the local paper:

Obama was the biggest star at Sunday’s gathering — though a popular Portland band, The Decemberists, provided the warmup act. With blue skies and temperatures in the 80s, many in the crowd said Waterfront Park was simply the place to be.

I don’t listen to that kind of noise pollution, but I know that on a gorgeous, unseasonably mild day in Portland, a free performance by a hugely successful local band is likely to draw a huge crowd, and it seems that’s precisely what happened. Nobody denies that Obama is a phenomenon, drawing enormous crowds wherever he goes, but this was reported like all of Oregon showed up to see Obama. New information has come to light.

Hugh also notes that The Decemberists typically open their shows with what I’m sure is a stirring rendition of the Soviet national anthem. No word on whether they opened the Obama rally with such a performance, but I’m certain our trusted media would have reported it if they did.

Goldfarb can be quite acerbic when he wants to be, can’t he? And of course, quite correct. Funny; Back in my day, they used to get Harry Chapin as a draw for such events. ANd of course we saw reports that night on the local news which reported that the political rally was attended by x people, when in fact politics was not on their minds at all, and they were annoyed when Chapin tried to talk politics from the stage.

This was of course 30 years ago. And Obama, we’re told, represents political change.